I still do not see a problem
But I see your information and I don't find it to be a problem for me.The problem is that your assertion of there being "no dispute" is provably wrong, as is your assertion that everything was written by 70 AD.
This is why I want to see more mainline churches push Biblical literacy.
What does the 'me' quote go with? I don't see what you are responding too?That's interesting. I wonder why you would.
I still do not see a problem because the books that God wanted in the canon of 66 are in that canon. God knows what He is doing. In the end, the books God wanted to be in there are in there.
So what if someone disputed 2 Peter, doesn't mean they were right or that it was valid.
I see why you would want to prove the Bible inerrant, but I don't think you've done that.
God made sure what He wanted was included in the canon. Period.
The cannon that closed is the canon of 66 books God wanted in the Bible.
Because Gods Word tells us in Timothy that His Word is good for all training and correction and for equipping for all acts of righteousnessAnd your evidence that God wanted this is what?
And that's your opinionOnly that you stated the opposite. In any case modern scholarship agrees with the many of the Early Church Fathers who disputed its authenticity.
I think you just said the opposite of what you wanted to say.
Sounds to me like you are willing to ignore any and all evidence in order to preserve your preconceived notions of infallibility.
No, the canon that closed in the Western church was 73 books. Then a thousand years later some Protestants threw out seven of those books. But what I want to know is why you are continuing to reiterate this fallacy after you've already admitted you haven't researched it?
I still do not see a problem because the books that God wanted in the canon of 66 are in that canon. God knows what He is doing. In the end, the books God wanted to be in there are in there.
Because Gods Word tells us in Timothy that His Word is good for all training and correction and for equipping for all acts of righteousness
Because Gods Word tells us in Timothy that His Word is good for all training and correction and for equipping for all acts of righteousness
So Timothy doesn't need Revelation? Cause it wasn't written until 20 years later....
Not really. Most scholars believe that the pastoral epistles are written second century, perhaps by Polycarp.
I meant 90 AD, my bad, typo.If John wrote circa 90 AD, then that means the canon was not closed in 70 AD.
You just undermined his own post.
This is why I don't trust a single thing that you say. "Most scholars", lol.Not really. Most scholars believe that the pastoral epistles are written second century, perhaps by Polycarp.
The following is a list of missing possible scriptures mentioned within the scriptures themselves.
This is why I don't trust a single thing that you say. "Most scholars", lol.
I might think about this scripture before putting a bunch of junk out on these forums. God doesn't take to it kindly.